The refusal of many people to accept genetically modified foods is often perceived as a failure to convince the public of the benefits of science. I would argue that, in terms of public engagement, the GM debate of 20 years ago was in some ways a success.
The GM campaign should have gone further to facilitate a more thoughtful discourse, but at the end of the day, the response was 鈥渘o thanks鈥�. Genuine public engagement is, by its definition, a two-way process of asking questions and listening to the answers.
Advertisement
Science has many consequences, so society must have a say. The focus was on convincing people that the technology was safe, but that wasn鈥檛 all the public wanted to talk about.
When we ask people from all walks of life to discuss the implications of science innovations, four core questions typically arise: Who are the winners? Who are the losers? What are the benefits? What are the risks?
More in-depth discussions around GM revealed that people did not just see themselves as consumers, but had wide-ranging concerns, including that big business could be the only real winner (see 鈥�The second great battle for the future of our food is underway鈥�).
It does not matter how many times we say 鈥渢here is no evidence that GM foods are unsafe鈥�, if the question is 鈥渨ho will benefit from the application of this technology?鈥�.
If we really believe in involving society in the direction of science, we must accept that society may reject it or want changes. Public engagement should not be about asking the same question over and over until the 鈥渞ight鈥� answer is received. As we debate the future of GM food, let鈥檚 take the time to actually listen to what the public is saying and asking.
This article appeared in print under the headline 鈥淲e must listen to the public鈥檚 views on GM鈥�
